The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

134
The incompatibility of Dative pronouns with the Directional reading of šalax
(‘sent’) can be accounted for based on the analysis of the Dative le- (‘to’) in 4.2. It is not
controversial that Dative Case is the canonical Case of Recipients (not of Locations).
Although le- in Hebrew can function as a regular P, combining with a DP and forming a
PP, it was argued in section 4.2 that the Dative le- is not an independent P-head, but
rather an affix on D. Following the suggestion made by Tali Siloni (p.c.), I assume that
Dative (and Accusative) pronouns in Hebrew are picked out from the lexicon Casemarked.
That is, le- + pronoun is a Dative pronoun. (The Directional P has to be
realized as el when it introduces a pronoun). Given the canonical status of Dative as the
Case assigned to Recipients, using a Dative pronoun forces the Dative reading of šalax
in (40b). This reading is very inappropriate, if the object sent is human (i.e. ‘the
children’ in (39a)).
In light of the above, it is clear that the Dative and the Directional uses of šalax
(‘sent’) are distinct. In the former the P-morpheme le- (‘to’) is the Dative le- discussed
at length in 4.2. In what follows I will focus on the analysis of the Directional P le-/el.
Since both Directional and Locative Ps are predicates, I start by comparing them.
As will become clear shortly, they differ in important respects and therefore deserve a
different syntactic treatment.
4.3.2 The Locative-Directional distinction
The binding phenomena discussed in 4.1 show that Locative and Directional Ps are
both predicates (41), (42), introducing a pronoun coindexed with the subject (Condition
B in the “Reflexivity” framework): 30
Locative
(41) bart i sam et ha-sukarya leyad-o i /?*leyad acmo i
Bart put Acc the-candy near-him/near himself
30 I will return to the occurrence of an anaphor coindexed with the object in 4.3.3